Leading Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid are raising some reservations about President Obama's plan to leave up to 50,000 troops in Iraq.
Pelosi told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, a presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq... I do think that there's a need for some."
Democrats should stop bickering and rally around Obama by supporting his troop plan. If Iraq remains or becomes even more stable in 2010, then Obama will almost surely draw down troops even more quickly than he's currently announcing. The 50,000 number is obviously a preventive measure, to make sure that the situation in Iraq doesn't deteriorate into factional violence. Imagine the criticism Obama would come under if Iraq is in a lot worse shape a year from now. A "Who Lost Iraq" debate would erupt, with the GOP claiming that cowardly Democratic policies had led directly to defeat.
Consistent with his pragmatic bent, Obama has struck out a middle course, knowing that in 2011 all U.S. combat troops are obligated to depart Iraq. The entire sordid Iraq mess is coming to an end. The Iraq War will rapidly fade from American consciousness, though the damage it has done to that country, including creating millions of refugees living in Syria, Jordan and elsewhere, will not. If Democrats want to worry about something, it shouldn't be Iraq, but Afghanistan and Pakistan, which pose a mortal threat to Obama's presidency.
Can we finally vote for change in 2012?
Plus, a draw-down of forces can be an extremely complex operation. You can't just load everything up and leave. There are huge amounts of equipment that have to be disposed of, either given over to the Iraqis (as we did in Vietnam) or packed and shipped home. It takes enormous amounts of time, and trained personnel.
Knowing what I know about military things after 21 years in the Army, I think that the timetable the President has decided on is probably very reasonable. Also, leaving 50k or so forces in place is not a bad thing. We've had around that number in Korea and Japan for over a half-century. They will have a stabilizing influence vis-a-vis Iran. The President is making pragmatic decisions.
Like most super intelligent people, he is able to take in conflicting points of view and make a decision that considers each. It would have been easier and simpler and politically expedient to just follow his original plan - he could have, but, would it ultimately have been the correct course of action? I want what's right, not what's politically expedient. This will be harder on our military personnel - I wish it were not so.
I have high hopes for our president, but I am a pragmatist, too.
The Obama/Biden Iraq strategy is a sound one, even if that is lost on the Democratic leadership in Congress.
So the other three branches can profess a desire for stability in Iraq, the Middle East in general.
But that fourth branch benefits from keeping the region destabilized. It is the way to control the resources of the region. Divide and conquer.
MR. LEHRER: You’re not the least bit uneasy over the fact as John McCain and John Boehner, the Republican leader of the House, have praised your plan while the Democrats are criticizing it?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I don’t — I don’t make these decisions based on polls or popularity. I make the decisions based on what I think is best. This is consistent with what I said during the campaign. The fact — if anything I think people should be interested in the fact that there’s been a movement in the direction of what I thought was going to be the right plan in the first place.
http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/02/27/everything-old-is-new-again/
I'll give him credit when it's due him.
On the other hand, I want Bush and his cronies prosecuted for this catastrophe!